In Defense of the National Anthem

I've read probably a dozen articles justifying Colin Kaepernick's decision to sit during the National Anthem. In each one, the authors demonstrate that the author of the Star-Spangled Banner, Francis Scott Key, was a racist and wrote racially charged lyrics into the song. For example, the third stanza reads:

No refuge could save the hireling and slave

From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,

And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave

O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Among these articles, people are making bold statements such as 1) Kaepernick did what was right because of these racist lyrics; 2) the anthem is racist; 3) Francis Scott Key was racist. 

Take for instance what Shaun King says:

Like Kaepernick, I've had enough of injustice in America and I've had enough of anthems written by bigots. Colin Kaepernick has provided a spark."The Star-Spangled Banner" should've never been made into our national anthem. That President Woodrow Wilson, widely thought to be one of the most bigoted presidents ever elected, chose it as our national anthem, is painfully telling as well.

 Several things are wrong with this analysis and, as an introduction, I want to demonstrate how ridiculous this mistaken fervor over the anthem has perpetuated these absolutely crazy theories from a historical perspective. First, King gets wrong that Woodrow Wilson "chose it as our national anthem." Even a cursory look over wikipedia will reveal that while Wilson did have the anthem played at military ceremonies, it wasn't actually initiated as the national anthem until Herbert Hoover signed it into law in 1931. Which is interesting because King says, "First off, the song, which was originally written as a poem, didn't become our national anthem until 1931," which was well after Wilson got out of office. So here is my first point:

This is a controversial issue that is being argued for by historical inaccuracy.

The writing of the Star-Spangled Banner, as many know, was during the War of 1812. One article I read about this issue is by Jon Swartz where he says of the war:

“The Star-Spangled Banner,” Americans hazily remember, was written by Francis Scott Key about the Battle of Fort McHenry in Baltimore during the War of 1812. But we don’t ever talk about how the War of 1812 was a war of aggression that began with an attempt by the U.S. to grab Canada from the British Empire.

This is an oversimplification that isn't even close to being correct. To suggest that a whole war was fought because the budding country was attempting to exercise imperialistic domination over the British is absurd and dishonest. Very briefly, and more accurately, the war was fought over two primary issues (and there are more, but for time's sake...): 1) the British were sponsoring Native American raids from Canada into what is today Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. By initiating skirmishes around the Canadian-American border, the United States attempted to usurp some territory from the British to be used as a bargaining chip. 2) During the Napoleonic Wars, the British found their recruitment stretched. For this reason, they started capturing American Merchant Marines and forcing them into service for the British. This was called impressment.

So no, it was not "an attempt by the U.S. to grab Canada from the British Empire." The real reasons were much more complicated than Swartz makes them out to be.

When the British attacked Fort McHenry, Francis Scott Key was present and penned the famous poem that became the national anthem. The controversial third stanza speaks of "hireling and slave" that "no refuge could save." These progressives have interpreted this as a racially charged statement claiming that Key and the anthem is racist and represents bigotry (to support their argument that Colin Kaepernick was justified to sit during the anthem). But the truth of these claims are suspect.

The British utilized escaped slaves from the United States and incorporated them into the "Colonial Marines." They were a Corps of slaves who made up this new unit. This gave the British a tactical advantage: the slaves knew the geography better and were brave warriors. It is well known that the British throughout their Imperialistic history have used colonies to fight their wars (take for example the Indian Regiments in World War I who fought for the British), but it is interesting to see almost universal praise for the British in this undertaking. King says, "These black men were called the Corps of Colonial Marines and they served valiantly for the British military. Key despised them." Swartz says, "The reality is that there were human beings fighting for freedom with incredible bravery during the War of 1812. However, 'The Star-Spangled Banner' glorifies America’s 'triumph' over them — and then turns that reality completely upside down, transforming their killers into the courageous freedom fighters."

It is interesting to see this kind of backwards logic. It is ok for the British to subjugate former slaves to military service (and that isn't racist?) but for Key to support the defeat of this Corps is racist? But that doesn't make for a good story: what is hot right now is Kaepernick not standing for the anthem. It is with the support of their fabricated historical metanarrative that they can make such claims while leaving issues such as this out of the picture. Not to mention that the British were still fighting with Napoleon in Europe, so utilizing former slaves provided them with bodies who would take bullets and not have a huge effect on the mainstays of the British forces when they returned, intact, to Britain to continue the fight.

Then we have Francis Scott Key himself, a controversial figure (or that's how he is portrayed at least). He was a lawyer and spent time defending slaves in court. In Marc Leepson's "Francis Scott Key, A Life," he says, "Soon after he set up legal shop in Georgetown, Francis Scott Key began representing slaves and freed African Americans in legal disputes, including civil actions in which slaves petitioned for their freedom" (Leepson, 25). Leepson goes on to say, "... Francis Scott Key had a deserved reputation as someone who spoke out against the evils of slavery and offered his legal services gratis to slaves and former slaves" (Leepson, 26). You would never know such things from King's article, where he says, "Key, as District Attorney of Washington, fought for slavery and against abolitionists every chance he got."In an article by Jason Johnson entitled "Star Spangled Bigotry: The Hidden Racist History of the National Anthem," Johnson states, "[Key] was, like most enlightened men at the time, not against slavery; he just thought that since blacks were mentally inferior, masters should treat them with more Christian kindness." Which is interesting: the historian would suggest that Key was someone who "spoke out against the evils of slavery" and yet the two journalists would suggest that Key was a racist.

To further the claim that Key was a racist, several commentators have pointed to his involvement in the "American Colonization Society." The organization believed that if all the slaves could be transported back to Africa, the slavery issue would be settled. Key helped organize the first meeting of the society in 1817. Johnson states, "[Key] supported sending free blacks (not slaves) back to Africa and, with a few exceptions, was about as pro-slavery, anti-black and anti-abolitionist as you could get at the time." This however, isn't exactly true. Let me introduce you to a well-known fellow in American history: Abraham Lincoln. Steven Woodworth says,

Lincoln sought by means of suggesting programs of gradual, compensated emancipation, along with the deportation of the freed slaves to Africa or Central America, to persuade border-state Unionists to give up slavery voluntarily, starting a process he hoped would spread to the rebellious states as well (Woodworth, 58).

All of this evidence presents me with my second point:

History is much more complicated than you think, and utilizing history for the purpose of defending a thesis that is built upon fragile ground is dishonest.

King has the audacity, at the end of his article, to state, "I will never stand for "The Star-Spangled Banner" another day in my damn life." But let's be honest: if the poor history he used to support his position is any indication of what he believes, is this even necessary? I fully agree that there are injustices in this country and we need to work towards fixing this. But what is frustrating is these progressives are using history to support their strange ideologies. History requires one to, as the old adage says, "walk a mile in someone else's shoes." Yes, slavery IS and WAS wrong. But if you lived in this time period, would you have thought so? Attempting to look at these issues from a 21st century moralistic perspective is asking for bad history. History is a series of facts that are interpreted to create a story. We all have biases, and these biases impact our interpretation of history. So the true aim of the historian is not to look at history and say "what can I use to support my worldview?" but rather "what happened and how can I synthesize that information to create a coherent story?"

I don't particularly care about Colin Kaepernick and his refusal to stand for the national anthem. I do take offense that the journalists who wrote about the anthem refused to get history correct and used to it further a political agenda. And what is further, they got so many facts wrong that they should be ashamed for trying to purport a legitimate history from their shoddy research.

Which leads me to my final point:

If you can find a country without a dark past, you should live there.

Every country has some semblance of a past or a present that is littered with tragedy. Every country has made mistakes in its infancy or even in the present. If we were to proverbially "sit down" during a national anthem for whatever country we lived in because of injustice, we would be standing for literally no anthem. Herbert Butterfield said,

"It has been said that the historian is the avenger, and that standing as a judge between the parties and rivalries and causes of bygone generations he can lift up the fallen and beat down the proud, and by his exposures and his verdicts, his satire and his moral indignation, can punish unrighteousness, avenge the injured or reward the innocent."

Our purpose for utilizing history should not be to justify political agendas; as demonstrated, this inevitably leads us to error. If we were to place a 21st century moral expectation on early America, we would have to condemn George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and most of the founders and signers of the Constitution. I love what John Fea says in his book, "Why Study History": "People in the past cannot defend themselves. They are at the mercy of the historian." Yes this country has made mistakes, but are we to condemn them? This may sound cliche, but if the answer is yes, you should probably understand the art of historical knowledge better.

The Christian Historian

Francis Schaeffer says in his book, "How Should We Then Live,"

 People have presuppositions, and they will live more consistently on the basis of these presuppositions than even they themselves may realize. By presuppositions we mean the basic way an individual looks at his life, his basic world view, the grid through which he sees the world. Presuppositions rest upon that which a person considers to be the truth of what exists. People's presuppositions lay a grid for all they bring forth into the external world. Their presuppositions also provide the basis for their values and therefore the basis for their decisions (Schaeffer, 1)

This is possibly one of the most concise and important statements on worldview this writer has ever read. Reading into the world the truth of "what exists" is one of the most profound exercises we as humans can dwell on. This affects every part of our being, whether we realize it or not. Our own particular worldview touches every facet of our lives, shapes us as individuals and people, and impacts those things in which we chose to pursue, whether it be in law, science, or history.

Of particular concern is the role of worldview in the life of the historian. The worldview of the historian that is Christian is not simply an over spiritualization of events to demonstrate that God works behind and beneath all events in human history. It isn't simply pointing the finger saying "God did this"; that perhaps is self-explanatory. Rather it is, as Schaeffer says, "a grid for all they bring forth into the external world." Worldview itself tells us that there are biases that every person brings to the table in interpretation. What exactly those biases are are largely determined by your particular worldview.

The Christian historian gains the unique perspective of seeing the world through the lens of scripture. It is the presuppositions of an infinite God outside of time and space who not only created the universe, but intimately knows and loves His creation that gives the Christian historian the "grid" for how the world functions. From this, we can understand that God is the author a creator of history and that the Bible is the authentic and historically accurate word of God. Through it, we can not only know who God is, but we can learn how to be righteous in His eyes.

And this perspective vastly influences the interpretation a historian utilizes. It helps us recognize that God is sovereign without over spiritualizing events; it helps us understand that God is the author of history; it demonstrates that man is sinful and prone to wrong doings; and it shows how fallible and small man is and how awesome, great, and infinite God is.

History is a great teacher. It can guide us and teach us about ourselves. From the Christian worldview, history is also redemptive in that it calls attention to great events. And there is no greater event in the history of the world that the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ who paid the penalty for sin on the cross so that we can become justified in the sight of God.


Bibliography

Schaeffer, Francis A. How Should We Then Live? the Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005.

Some Thoughts On Writing in Books

Ever since I became a bibliophile a couple of years ago, I have heard the same advice about book reading over and over: you need to write in your books. But the question I always asked was: how? What do you do? I would attempt to take out a pen and underline a bunch of stuff and felt like I wasn't doing anything. That is, until a couple of months ago. I read a book last year that gave them same advice and finally fed up, I took to the internet. I learned some things and with a combination of my own prowess and the things I learned, I came up with a really helpful system that has changed the way I read books. I thought I would present some of what I do in this post to help those out there who were like me and don't really know where to start when it comes to writing in books.

A warning before we begin: I read mostly non-fiction so the pointers you find in here will be only helpful in that realm. Also, don't feel constricted by this method. Feel free to take and leave whatever will help you most. This will be something that helps you get started and then you can refine the way you do it to be most helpful to yourself.

So let's begin:

What you'll need: a book, a pen (I prefer black ink), and a highlighter.

1) Underlining

Underlining is the bread and butter of my system. I do it frequently and without remorse. Remember that a paragraph structure consists of a topic sentence and then additional sentences to qualify that first sentence. In this way, I do a lot of underlining on key first sentences of a paragraph. I also underline whenever there is a list: I will underline each word in the list with it's own line (so a broken straight line) to emphasize the different components of a list. Simply: underline anything that you want. If you like a sentence, underline it. There is a lot of room for your own creativity in underlining but a word of caution: you do not want to be so excessive that when you re-read your book, you won't be able to read anything. In addition, this really needs to be done on a table or in your lap so your lines are not super sloppy. I've tried to do it on buses and it just doesn't work.

2) Highlighting

Highlighting is more reserved for things that are really important or things that you want to remember. Whenever I highlight something, it is something I want to remember or something that I could see myself referencing in the future. It could be a really awesome quote or a statistic. Whatever it is, just make sure it is worthy enough to highlight. Highlight paragraphs or sentences should be reserved for those things that you will eventually reference back to (more on this in a moment). In addition, I find myself highlighting numbers. So if an author says something like "There are three reasons for this.. First.. Second.. Third..." I will highlight the "three" and then "first, second and third". I will also underline the qualifying reason that usually appears close to "first" etc.

3) The Key

This is one of the most important parts of my system. Like I mentioned, highlighting is to be done only in cases that are REALLY important. Doing this however, is only good if you remember the page number that it's on. So I came up with a "key" to help me remember where those important moments are. The key is listed often times in the front cover of the book I am reading. I number as I go and I include 3 elements: the number referencing how many references there are, the page number, the kind of quote it is, and a brief description of what it was I highlighted. Take a look at two different keys:

Under the "kind of quote" I denote a single letter for the kind. A Q is a quote that I liked. An S is a statistic. I also have stars based on things that I think are even more worthy that just highlighting. The more stars, the more important or interesting it is. An example of an entry would be this:

23) Q - 127 - Jesus' death on the cross

This is a neat way of doing it because you can open up your book and quickly find important things that normally would take you minutes searching for. And you can come up with your own system of denoting what kind of symbols you want to use.

If this is how the key looks, here is an example of how it looks on the page it was from:



Notice a couple of things: the highlighted parts are what's really important, but you may notice underlines as well. I will often times finish an entire paragraph of underlining before I go back and highlight. The underline helps to emphasize what is important even in a large body of highlight. When I want to star something, I will usually bracket it to show where exactly I think the star should go. In this case, I thought pretty much the whole page was gold. One or two stars would denote much importance, but for me, three stars is pretty much as important as it gets. I must have thought this entire page was awesome!

One more note on the key: obviously this slows down reading a little bit because you have to highlight and turn all the way to the front of the book to write down your notes. Don't be dismayed however: it goes much faster with practice. I also don't necessarily go to the front after each time I've highlighted. I will wait until I finish a page. If the description could cover both pages, I will note that in my entry in the key. Take this for example:

45) Q - 167-8 - Substitutionary atonement


4) Paragraphs

As I said, often times paragraphs contain themes. You could either figure out themes, or you could write them out in the margins. I find this particularly helpful in lists. Take for consideration the following example:

 


Notice I bracket the paragraph in question and then write it's purpose. This is helpful when you're trying to find one particular thing on a page or two and need a quick reference.

Here is another example:



5) Notes in the margin

Writing out notes in the margin in always helpful, but only in cases where you are trying to emphasize something or disagree with a point. Take this for example:


Notice I'm agreeing with him here and I am merely just re-emphasizing the point in a different way. There is a lot of creativity and freedom in whatever you write. I try not to do too much unless I really disagree with what is being said.

6) End chapter notes

Sometimes I like to summarize the contents of the chapter at the end of the chapter. Granted, there has to be some space for this, but sometimes I find that it is helpful to summarize the entire chapter's important points at the end. Look at this example:



The chapter was about the decline of Christianity. The author cites 5 reasons to as why this is. I summarize the 5 reasons at the end of the chapter. Take another example:



7) Question and answers

Sometimes authors ask questions that may or may not be rhetorical in the text. Then they flesh out the answer to that question later in the chapter. This is extremely prevalent in John Stott's "The Cross of Christ" so I found it helpful to write a "Q" to the questions and an "A" in the answers. If the answers are later in the book, I'll write the page number the answer is on. Check out this example:






So there you have it. I hope this was helpful!

End of the Year Review: 2015 Edition

2015 was a good year. My goal for 2014 was to read 52 books. My goal for 2015 was to read 60 books. I’m happy to say I accomplished my goal and read 65 books this year. I’ve been tracking the number of pages I read as well, which totals to somewhere around 22,000 on the year (just a little more than last year which was around 20,000). Here is the list of books read this year (in no particular order):

1.          Cultural Shift – Albert Mohler

2.          The Apostle – John Pollock

3.          Martyn Llyod-Jones – Iain Murray

4.          Martin Luther: Here I Stand  - Ronald Bainton

5.          Jesus Christ Our Lord – John Walvoord

6.          Is Jesus the Only Way? – Ronald Nash

7.          Western Civilization Volume I – Marvin Perry

8.          The Glory of Heaven – John MacArthur

9.          From God to Us – Norman Geisler

10.       Confederacy of Dunces – John Toole

11.       Counter Culture – David Platt

12.       The Darkness and the Glory – Greg Harris

13.       Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World – Jack Weatherford

14.       The Great Gatsby – F. Scott Fitzgerald

15.       A Shepherd Looks at Pslam 23 – Phillip Keller

16.       The Bible (English Standard Version)

17.       The Cross of Christ – John Stott

18.       The Daring Mission of William Tyndall – Steve Lawson

19.       Miracle at Belleau Wood – Alan Axelrod

20.       Sith Lords – Paul Kemps

21.       The Road – Cormac McCarthy

22.       Proof – Daniel Montgomery and Timothy Paul Jones

23.       God in the Wasteland – David Wells

24.       No Place for Truth – David Wells

25.       The Wright Brothers – David McCullough

26.       Life By Design – Charles Detwiler

27.       Alexander Hamilton - Ron Chernow

28.       The Fall of the Ottomans – Eugene Rogan

29.       Losing our Virtue – David Wells

30.       The Greatest Knight – Thomas Abridge

31.       Above all earthly P'wrs – David Wells

32.       Dangerous Calling – Paul Tripp

33.       How Should We Then Live – Francis Schaeffer

34.       An American Soldier in WWI – George Browne

35.       Just Do Something – Kevin DeYoung

36.       Out of the Silent Planet – C.S. Lewis

37.       Gifted Hands – Ben Carson

38.       The Courage to be Protestant – David Wells

39.       Gulag – Anne Applebaum

40.       In the Kingdom of Ice – Hampton Sides

41.       Dead Wake – Erik Larson

42.       The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination – Loraine Boettner

43.       Unlikely Warrior – Michael Dingman

44.       Desiring God – John Piper

45.       The Unseen Realm – Michael Heiser

46.       In the Garden of Beasts – Erik Larson

47.       Ready Player One – Ernest Cline

48.       A Great and Holy War – Philip Jenkins

49.       The Devil in the White City – Erik Larson

50.       Missoula – Jon Krakauer

51.       The Consequences of Ideas – R.C. Sproul

52.       Four views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism - Various

53.       This Momentary Marriage – John Piper

54.       Man (Dis)connected – Philip Zimbardo

55.       The Gagging of God – D.A. Carson

56.       The Attributes of God vol 2 – A.W. Tozer

57.       Radical – David Platt

58.       Catch Me If You Can – Frank Abagnale Jr.

59.       Killers of the King – Charles Spencer

60.       Follow Me – David Platt

61.       Bad Religion – Ross Douthat

62.       Supernatural – Michael Heiser

63.       A Brief History of Indonesia – Tim Hannigan

64.       Finding Truth – Nancy Pearcey

65.       The Conviction to Lead – Albert Mohler

Some have encouraged me to speak about my most favorite books of the year, so the following are some highlights of the best books I’ve read in different genres:

Best Book of the Year: It would have to be “The UnseenRealm.” Michael Heiser’s ability to capture the imagination with solid biblical doctrine will change the way you see the Bible and the spiritual realm. I devoured this book in just under 4 days and I hope to read it again soon. Runner-Ups: In the Kingdom Of Ice; Above All Earthly P’wrs.

Best Non-Fiction: I thought Philip Zimbardo’s “Man(Dis)Connected” was one of the most important books I’ve read in a long time. His ability, from a secular perspective, to engage in a conversation to encourage men to be men is an important topic for discussion and will continue to be in an ever-connected world. Runner-Ups: Missoula; How Should We ThenLive.

Best Fiction: Many of you know I’m not a huge fiction reader, but if I had to pick, “A Confederacy of Dunces” is an incredible book that engages the imagination but also has an underlying theological message. Runner-Ups: Ready Player One; Out of the Silent Planet.

Best Biography: If you’ve been following my blogs for awhile, you know that I am a huge Ron Chernow fan. His biography on Alexander Hamilton took me awhile to get through, but was one of the most thorough and interesting biographies I’ve read in a long while. Runner-Ups: MartynLlyod-Jones; Martin Luther: Here I Stand.

Best History Book: I know this falls under non-fiction, but Hampton Sides “In the Kingdom of Ice” is too good to not be on this list. His book is almost like a fictional account that at times, you don’t know if you’re reading something made up or something that actually happened. Runner-ups: In the Garden of Beasts; The Mongols and the Making of the Modern World; Fall ofthe Ottomans.

Best Theological Book: This is a hard one. I’ve already mentioned Unseen Realm but it could easily take the cake here. I think that Greg Harris’ book “The Darkness and the Glory” was one of the most impactful books I read this year. For that reason, I think it gets the go ahead here. Runner-ups: Above All Earthly P’wrs; Is Jesus the Only Way?; No Place forTruth.

Reflecting on this year, many people asked me how I read so much. So what I thought I’d do is give some suggestions as to how to be a better reader in 2016. These are some things that I have learned as I have become a more mature reader:

1)    Take a book wherever you go. To the doctor, to the grocery store, to a meeting, when seeing friends: I always carry a book with me (either on my person or in my car) so that if I ever have any down time, I can squeeze in a few pages. These will add up: a page standing in line here, a page or two while waiting for your coffee partner and soon your book will be finished.

2)    Do everything you can to FINISH your book. When I first started reading, I tended to get really bored 100 pages in and I’d shelve it. What I have learned is that reading takes time and it’s ok if a 250 page book loses your attention half way through. I would recommend pushing through that chapter that you seem to be stuck on because I bet that next chapter will re-engage your attention. Don’t get discouraged: take your time and don’t give up too soon.

3)    Maximize your time by listening to audiobooks. I do so much driving in Southern California (for example: church is just about an hour drive for me) that I decided to get an Audible account when I moved here. 2 hours round trip is about 1/8^th of an audiobook. This way, I can maximize my time while I’m in the car. Some complain that they can’t focus while listening to an audiobook and I agree that sometimes I find my mind wandering. More often than not however, I think that’s a cleverly disguised excuse.

4)    Mix up what you read. I already said I don’t read much fiction, but sometimes it’s nice to break up the monotony of non-fiction to slip in a fun read every once and awhile. I also find topics that interest me and try to read those books. Not every book is worth reading, which leads me to number 5…

5)    If a book isn’t worth reading, shelve it. I know this kind of goes against my earlier advice to finish a book, but if you read 50 pages and hate the book, there’s no reason to finish it. Shelve it and move on. At any given time, I have probably 10-15 books that I’ve started but haven’t completed.  For some of these books, I’ll come back to it at a later time and find that I am refreshed and ready to give it another go. This helps keep things interesting and I don’t get so discouraged when I don’t finish one (also starting 100 pages in is a real psychological advantage).

6)    Set aside a time to read. I did this a lot my first year reading. Reading is like anything else where it takes time to grow into it. That first year, it took me forever to get through a 250 page book. But what I did was set aside an hour for reading every night before I went to bed. That sustained reading helped me mature in my reading to the point this year where I read some 3 and 400 page books in about 8 hours. After working on being a better reader, you will find that you are: faster, you can retain more, and you enjoy it more. If your attention span is short, try for a less ambitious goal: 15 minutes a day for a month and then slowly increase how long you spend reading. This combined with a good book will help you to sustain long periods of reading.

7)    Minimize distractions while you read. Sometimes I find that putting on soft classical music helps me read better. Anything with words will probably not be good however. Put your phone away and stay off the computer for the best results. You want to get into a flow of uninterrupted reading and text messages and facebook will just distract you.

8)    Books are meant to be written in! I just began practicing this this year. Find a system that is helpful to you and do it. Don’t just underline things arbitrarily. Think of it this way: if you were to read this book again or wanted to reference something in it, you want what you wrote in it to be helpful and not a hindrance. If you want some other tips for what I do, message me!

9)    Like anything, reading is a priority. If it’s important to you, you will do it!

Statistics show that Americans are reading less and less every year. If you are a high school graduate, studies show that you will finish somewhere around 5-8 books a year! College graduates are not much better with the number being somewhere around 10-15. Reading to me has become an important pastime and I hope to get even better at it next year. Here is my goal: 100 books in 2016! Looking at my output these past few months, I know it is possible. Here’s to 2015 and looking forward to 2016: if you are not a reader, start today!

Why Jesus Died On the Cross

I was challenged to write an essay on the question, "why did Jesus die on the cross" from one of our pastors this past week. This is what I came up with. I hope it is edifying to you !



                                                      The Atonement of Jesus: Defined

I was once asked to explain the atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross from an atheist as a self-proclaimed agnostic sat within earshot to the discussion. I told of my understanding of the atonement and was received with astonishment. The two laughed at what I understood to be a beautiful doctrine; it was mocked as barbaric.

            It is no wonder, then, that the atonement of Jesus Christ has been much misunderstood throughout the ages. When most American Evangelicals are approached with the question, “why did Jesus die on the cross?”, the answer will most often look something like this: “to die for my sins.” But this is not a full, theological answer. Others have reasoned that God can just forgive sin and Jesus’ death on the cross was not necessary. R.W. Yardbourgh says of this, “Recently M. Winter has argued that the crucifixion was, in fact, unnecessary. All humans must do to be reconciled to God is ask sincerely. Moral conversion is enough.”^[1] But this is not a sufficient answer either; there had to be a reason for the atonement of Jesus Christ. Why would Christ be “made flesh” (John 1:14) if God could just forgive sins? 

Some time ago, Dr. John Piper wrote a book called “Fifty Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die.” I suppose that dying for sin is one of those reasons. As seen in the title of the book, there could be a myriad of theologically sound reasons why Jesus died on the cross (at least 50!).

            The question, then, is what is the best answer for the question, “why did Jesus die on the cross?” I propose that a quick reading of Romans 3:21-26 will give an excellent answer to this question. But again, the theological richness of this passage is lost on most laymen and women who read through the book of Romans. The complexity contained within the third chapter of the book of Romans made Tommy Nelson of Denton Bible Church, located in North Texas, to say that “if the bad guys ever come for you, and they are going to take your bible, what you do is you take your bible and you turn to Romans 3:21-26 and you tear this out and memorize it. Because this is the summit of your bible… it’s been said you can tell the intelligence of a Christian by the notes he has on Romans 3:21-26.”[2]

            I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Nelson, and I believe that the watered-down versions of the atonement we see today are representative of the cheapening of the Gospel message seen in post-WWII Evangelicalism. It is my intention to answer this question, “why did Jesus die on the cross?” This is not a simple answer however. It begins in the Old Testament; the sacrificial system as seen in Leviticus represents an archetype for Jesus’ death on the cross. The discussion will then move to defining what different atonement theories there are to gain a historical perspective on the shifting answers of theologians before arriving at what the reformers called, “substitutionary atonement.” I present substitutionary atonement (as do most Evangelicals) to be the most correct interpretation of the question of Jesus’ death on the cross and the most credible evidence is seen in Romans 3:21-26. I will then examine this passage in particular, exposing its richness and depth. By the end, the reader will have a clear answer on the reason why Jesus died on the cross.

      Our quest begins at the root of atonement in the Old Testament. What is atonement and why was it necessary? Many are aware that sacrifices happened in the Old Covenant and were prescribed in the law of the ancient Hebrews, but many more are clueless as to why this was necessary. This must be fleshed out to gain a foundational understanding of the original question.

Two necessary elements are required for atonement: a transgression and a person whom the transgression was committed against. In relevant nomenclature, this means atonement requires a sinner and God who we have sinned against. R.T. Kendall says,  “More specifically, the notion of atonement assumes that the relationship between human beings and God is fractured, but can be temporarily restored by religious rituals. The verb (kāpar) literally means ‘to cover’; atonement is envisioned as covering over sin and thus cleaning it up.”^[3]

It is crucial at this point to understand the holiness of God. Holiness literally means “separation.” Separation from what though? One commentator said:

God’s holiness is what separates Him from all other beings, what makes Him separate and distinct from everything else. God’s holiness is more than just His perfection or sinless purity; it is the essence of His “other-ness,” His transcendence. God’s holiness embodies the mystery of His awesomeness and causes us to gaze in wonder at Him as we begin to comprehend just a little of His majesty.^[4]

This does little justice to what God’s holiness pragmatically looks like. God is so pure, so transcendent, and so perfect, that words alone cannot express this attribute of God. The prophet Isaiah got a small taste of God’s holiness in a vision contained in Isaiah 6; this made him fall on his face in reverence for the King of Kings, saying, “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!” (Is. 6:5)  

This definition of God’s holiness is the cause for the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus; in this chapter, God, through the messenger Moses, prescribes the ritual cleansing entitled the “day of atonement” or “Yom Kippur”. Because of God’s holiness, He is perfect in every way. His perfection descends to His other attributes, such as the justice of God. God’s justice requires punishment when wrongs have been committed (called “sin” throughout the bible). The nation of Israel was required to make atonement for the sin of the previous year as a way to temporarily restore the relationship between holy God and sinful man. The ritual contained there is complex and a full discussion of the garments and ceremony will not be discussed at depth.

The importance lies within the elements that compose the atonement: the sins of the nation of Israel incite the wrath of God upon the nation; the nation’s relationship with God is broken because of sin; reparations cannot be made to appease God, or the debt in which is owed to God cannot be repaid; the only solution to this is the death of the human in which the sin proceeded from; instead of the death of people, God instituted a system where there would be a substitute. Eberhard Jüngel makes this process very clear:

It must first be remembered that atonement is something different from making reparations. Atonement is for when reparations cannot be made. The idea of atonement presumes that there is a transgression which cannot be paid out, a kind of debt that simply cannot be reckoned in ledgers and balanced like other debts. It is not possible for such a transgression, such a debt to be cancelled out by human debtors. It remains there. Any extinction of the debt can only come with the extinction of the debtor. It is not some thing, no matter how much, but their lives that they must give in order to atone for their debt. So ‘for those humans, atonement means a readiness to die’. However, so that they might not die, these debtors bring an atoning sacrifice, which takes their place. Thus an atoning sacrifice is another sacrifice which substitutes for the life of the one who has deserved death.^[5]

L.L. Morris rather succinctly says this about the process: “It is clear that in the OT it was recognized that death was the penalty for sin (Ezk. 18:20), but that God graciously permitted the death of a sacrificial victim to substitute for the death of the sinner.”^[6] It must be remembered that God is holy and humans, no matter how hard we try, are not. Therefore, atonement is necessary to continue the relationship between man and God.

The Old Testament sacrifices demonstrate a type of what was to come in Jesus Christ. The book of Hebrews is often said to be understood in the context of Leviticus. Hebrews 10:4 tell us of the Old Testament sacrifices: “But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” In this, we see that the Old Testament sacrifices were not a permanent solution to sin. As expressed earlier, the purpose of the atonement in this dispensation was a temporary solution to a permanent problem: sin was covered to maintain the relationship but it was not taken away. For this, a more perfect sacrifice was necessary; one that would require God’s intervention in human affairs.

Throughout historical theology, the question of why Jesus died on the cross has been mired in controversy. In general, there are three major views that require our attention: 1) the “ransom theory” (dating back to Origen and other church fathers); 2) the “moral influence” theory (dating back to Abelard, 1079-1142); 3) and the “penal satisfaction” view (dating as far back as Anselm of Canterbury [1033-1109] but upheld by the reformers).^[7] Each one of these views will be held up to scrutiny in order to engage the question at large.

The church fathers largely accepted the ransom theory of atonement. This essentially is the theory that focuses on passages like Mark 10:45: “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.”  Jordan Henderson says, “The early church fathers follow the New Testament writers in focusing on ransom as the chief metaphor to describe the atonement. Christ’s death is seen as a ransom paid on behalf of sinful humanity for their redemption.”^[8] A ransom could be defined as “a sum of money demanded or paid for the release of a captive.”^[9] Obviously the church fathers did not think that money could be paid to release a man from sins, but rather Jesus Christ replaced the monetary analogy. But to whom was this ransom paid? God?

No, the ransom was paid to Satan. Irenaeus discusses this when he said:

So again, on the other hand, it was necessary that through man himself he should, when conquered, be bound with the same chains with which he had bound man, in order that man, being set free, might return to his Lord, leaving to him (Satan) those bonds by which he himself had been fettered, that is, sin.^[10]

This seems incongruous to us in the 21^st century, but in the early days of Christianity, it held weight for almost a millennium. Dr. Henderson says, “In the Western fathers, the ransom theory is seen much more in terms of God’s justice in His transaction with the devil.”^[11]

The problem with this theory is that it makes the business end of the transaction not between God and Jesus, but between God and Satan. When considered against the Old Testament sacrificial system, this seems to hold little weight. God’s wrath was against the sin of the nation that could only be reconciled by the high priest. It is interesting, then, that Hebrews 8 speaks of Jesus as being superior to the high priest; Jesus mirrored an element of the priestly lineage (Hebrews 7) and therefore mankind was reconciled to God by Christ’s earthly ministry, death on the cross, and subsequent resurrection. It would seem that we must postulate, at this point, that a substantial doctrine of the atonement that does not commit error must make the transaction of substitution between God and Christ (and not between God and Satan as the ransom theory proposes).

While the ransom theory is replete with problems, it did not get overturned as the dominant theory of atonement until the medieval French scholastic philosopher Peter Abelard proposed the so-called, “moral influence theory.” If the ransom theory says that a transaction took place between God and Satan, the moral influence theory denies that a transaction was even necessary.

Abelard maintained an overemphasized view of God’s love that would satisfy the liberal theologians of today. According to Abelard, the death of Christ was such a momentous event of Christ’s love towards us that we cannot help but be drawn toward it. In our repentance, we are transformed by the death of Christ without a long and drawn out explanation of sin or atonement. It is curious that this was even considered a healthy alternative to the ransom theory. Franklin Johnson says, “According to this, the sole mission of Christ was to reveal the love of God in a way so moving as to melt the heart and induce men to forsake sin.”^[12]

It is obvious, as we have seen, that this theory does not do justice to the Old Testament sacrificial system and therefore must be rejected. Where is the reverence for a holy God? Where is the satisfaction for God’s wrath against sin? When reading Abelard, one might confused him for the liberal theologians of the 20^th and 21^st century, not the medieval philosopher. By necessity in the arguments laid out, we must reject this theory as well.

The most obvious answer to the best explanation for the atonement then, lies with “penal satisfaction”, or substitutionary atonement. A most basic definition of substitutionary atonement could be what Charles Ryrie proposed: “Substitutionary or vicarious atonement simply means that Christ suffered as a substitute for us, that is, instead of us, resulting in the advantage to us of paying for our sins.”^[13] Notice the striking similarity of this language in reference to the Old Testament sacrifices. In order to describe this doctrine to it’s fullest, we now turn to Romans 3:21-26.

            The book of Romans is one of the most important documents available to Christians today. The Apostle Paul begins his letter with a greeting and details of his future plans. In verse 16, he says he is not “ashamed of the Gospel of Christ” before suddenly shifting directions in verse 18. From Romans 1:18-3:20, Paul paints a bleak picture of humanity. The message within this passage could be summed up succinctly in Romans 3:23: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

            We have already examined the holiness of God and his perfection versus the imperfection and sin of man. To take this one step further, follow this logic: if God is holy in everyway (perfect in every attribute), how can man get to holy God? There is no way to do enough good things to reach holy God because you already stand condemned as a sinner based on your pedigree of being human (Rom. 5:12-14), not to mention the sin accumulated over a lifetime. No amount of asceticism or good works can get you to holy God. Only through forgiveness of sins can one truly reach the heights of holy God. But God cannot just forgive sins (as in the moral influence theory); this violates His perfect justice. This predicament is precarious, but not impossible.

            In verse 21 of Romans 3, Paul talks about the “righteousness” of God. What is this righteousness? As mentioned, God is perfect in all His attributes. The root word of “righteousness” is the word “right”. Therefore, righteousness is the act of doing right all the time. Paul demonstrates that the “righteousness of God has been made manifested apart from the law.” This means that there is a way to salvation that does not require following a set of rules and obligations that we would ultimately fail to keep because of sin. Paul says this righteousness is through faith in Jesus Christ “for all who believe.” This means that we can have the same righteousness Jesus exhibited on earth if we believe in Him by faith. John Stott says, “If God justifies sinners freely by his grace, on what ground does he do so? How is it possible for the righteous God to declare the unrighteous to be righteous without either compromising his righteousness or condoning their unrighteousness? That is our question. God’s answer is the cross.”^[14]

            This process is called “justification” and it is a word that Paul uses in verse 24: “and are justified by his grace as a gift through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” The avenue in which one can “become holy” is through a process called justification. Justification is a word that conjures up pictures of a courtroom: you stand condemned by the judge (God) for your crimes (sin). The judge is about to read off your sentence when Jesus Christ steps in to take your place for you. In this way, the judge can declare you “not guilty”. This satisfies the justice of God (who can not just let you “off the hook” by forgiving you, because this violates His justice) but at the same time, allows you to have a relationship with Him. This is accomplished through faith (a discussion that would be best saved for a different time).

            Verse 25 says, “whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.” It is here that we come to one of the most conclusive passages about the atonement. And within this passage, one finds answers to the question, “why did Jesus die on the cross?”

            The word “propitiation” has crucial significance here. Dr. Leon Morris says of this, “…propitiation means the removal of wrath…”^[15] Dr. Stott agrees: “to ‘propitiate’ somebody means to placate his or her anger, and it seems to them an unworthy concept of God (more heathen than Christian) to suppose that he gets angry and needs to be appeased.”^[16] The idea is simple: God’s wrath descends on sin; this is in line with His character; He is holy. Therefore, in order to “justify” man, a way to reconcile men to Himself, He must present a substitution. Much like the Old Testament sacrifices, this atonement placates the wrath of God.

            This is not as simple as it seems however. Jesus was no ordinary sacrifice. It was Anselm who postulated the intricacies of the atonement that the reformers clung to. He said that it was only suitable that if the wrath of God was upon humanity, a human should rightly be representative of the human race. Therefore, only a man could accomplish for man the satisfaction of God’s wrath. On the other hand however, we have seen that man is incapable of doing what is right (Rom. 3:23). Therefore, only God could effectively accomplish what man is unable to do.

            And that is why the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross is so beautiful: it is in the hypostatic union, or the union of both 100% man and 100% God, where God’s humanity and God’s perfection meet to be the perfect sacrifice as described in Hebrews 10:1-7. The reason Jesus died on the cross was to satisfy the wrath of God for sin. In doing so, God is now able to extend a hand of adoption, through faith, because of His grace.

            Dr. John MacArthur said it best:

Then comes the death of Christ. And what does the death of Christ say? If it says anything in the universe, it says God is righteous. What do you mean by that? I mean, sin had to have a punishment, right? So you see it is at the cross where God's justice and God's mercy have kissed each other, at the cross. Why? Because the penalty was paid but we were spared from the paying by the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ, so that God's mercy can be extended to us with no loss of His justice. That's why I say primarily, the death of Jesus Christ is for the sake of God, to preserve God from accusation that He is unjust, because the glory of God is the reason for everything. Let me tell you, folks, you've just plumbed the depths of the meaning of Calvary's cross. God was satisfied (the writer’s emphasis).[17]

            The plain fact, as demonstrated, is that Jesus died for God: Jesus died as the perfect substitute for the wrath of God upon sin. And in doing so, we can be justified, or declared “not guilty” through faith. This is of primary importance when answering the question, “why did Jesus die on the cross?”

            Dr. John Piper has my utmost respect. What I have tried to accomplish here is one of the primary reasons to answer our original question. What his book, “Fifty Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die” says about the atonement is not that Jesus died for a number of different reasons (although that may be true), but simply that the atonement is much more complicated than putting it in a box and expecting one or two reasons to answer the whole. When Christians say, “Jesus died for my sins,” they are expressing a correct answer only to a point. It is reductionist to say this is the full story. What is of greater significance to answer is how this is possible when trying to resolve the dilemma of sinful man to holy God. I understand that what has been accomplished thus far is merely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the atonement; I hope I have faithfully answered the question that began this quest, “why did Jesus die on the cross?”

Bibliography

Got Questions Ministries. Got Questions? Bible Questions Answered. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2002–2013.

Henderson, J. Jordan. “Substitution.” Edited by John D. Barry, David Bomar, Derek R. Brown, Rachel Klippenstein, Douglas Mangum, Carrie Sinclair Wolcott, Lazarus Wentz, Elliot Ritzema, and Wendy Widder. The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015.

Irenaeus of Lyons. “IrenÊus against Heresies.” In The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Vol. 1. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

Jüngel, Eberhard. Justification : The Heart of the Christian Faith. Edinburgh;  New York: T&T Clark, 2001.

Kendall, R. T. Understanding Theology, Volume One. Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus, 1996.

MacArthur, John. “How Christ Died for God, Part 1” (mp3). Sermon, Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, CA, April 18, 1982. Accessed November 13, 2015. https://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/45-31/how-christ-died-for-god-part-1.

Morris, L. L. “Atonement.” Edited by D. R. W. Wood, I. H. Marshall, A. R. Millard, J. I. Packer, and D. J. Wiseman. New Bible Dictionary. Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996.

Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988.

Rodrigues, Adriani Milli. “Atonement.” Edited by Douglas Mangum, Derek R. Brown, Rachel Klippenstein, and Rebekah Hurst. Lexham Theological Wordbook. Lexham Bible Reference Series. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014.

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999.

Soanes, Catherine, and Angus Stevenson, eds. Concise Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Stott, John R. W. The Message of Romans: God’s Good News for the World. The Bible Speaks Today. Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001.

Yarbrough, R. W. “Atonement.” Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner. New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000.

---

^[1] R. W. Yarbrough, “Atonement,” ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner, New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 392.

[2] Thomas Nelson, “The Greatest Paragraph in the Bible” (sermon, Denton Bible Church, Denton, TX), accessed November 13, 2015, http://www.dbcmedia.org/sermons/the-greatest-paragraph-in-the-bible--pauls-assertion-of-justification/.

^[3] Adriani Milli Rodrigues, “Atonement,” ed. Douglas Mangum et al., Lexham Theological Wordbook, Lexham Bible Reference Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014).

^[4] Got Questions Ministries, Got Questions? Bible Questions Answered (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2002–2013).

^[5] Eberhard Jüngel, Justification : The Heart of the Christian Faith (Edinburgh;  New York: T&T Clark, 2001), 158–159.

^[6] L. L. Morris, “Atonement,” ed. D. R. W. Wood et al., New Bible Dictionary (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 102.

^[7] R. T. Kendall, Understanding Theology, Volume One (Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus, 1996), 114.

^[8] J. Jordan Henderson, “Substitution,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015).

^[9] Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson, eds., Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

^[10] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 550.

^[11] J. Jordan Henderson, “Substitution,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015).

^[12] Franklin Johnson, Chapter V: The Atonement, vol. 3 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2005), 65.

^[13] Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999), 329.

^[14] John R. W. Stott, The Message of Romans: God’s Good News for the World, The Bible Speaks Today (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 112.

^[15] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 180.

^[16] John R. W. Stott, The Message of Romans: God’s Good News for the World, The Bible Speaks Today (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 113.

[17] John MacArthur, “How Christ Died for God, Part 1” (mp3 of sermon, Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, CA, April 18, 1982), accessed November 13, 2015, https://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/45-31/how-christ-died-for-god-part-1.